signatures required for approval on Engineering drawing? 1

[Steven K]

What are the standards for signatures on a Eng. drawing?
Is there a certain amount and who?

Thanks.

 

[drawoh]

Mohanlal0488,

I recently worked for a company that did have professional engineers sign off everything. I think this reflects their very high level of professionalism. They did not have major safety issues mechanically. There were issues with the electronics.

Consider that in a company that manufactures in quantity, you can test everything. The company above drop tested their product to ensure it arrived at the customer's loading dock in working order. If you are designing a big bridge, there is no opportunity to fail your way to success.

--
JHG

 

[CWB1]

Although not directly drawing standards the following speak to the design reveiw process

Not to nitpick, but design review is a completely different process than drawing review.

How's come I don't see it mentioned that in some states a registered professional engineer has to sign any which involve public safety?

Because no state in the US actually requires that. Most folks have hundreds of items in their home that could maim or kill someone at any given time, the only one which may (and usually doesn't) have a PE's stamp on it is the home itself. Even within govt infrastructure, many systems impacting public safety have little/no engineering oversight.

 

[SwinnyGG]

How's come I don't see it mentioned that in some states a registered professional engineer has to sign any which involve public safety?

Drawings that require stamps by law (structures, infrastructure, etc) represent a tiny percentage of all engineering drawings produced.

I have noticed that the professional engineer sign off is not as highly regarded in the mechanical engineering industry when compared to the civil industry. Most of the mechanical engineers I have interacted with don't even really bother with the registration process.

I wouldn't say 'not highly regarded'... it just isn't required. I've produced thousands of drawings in my carrer. I've stamped zero.

 

[dgallup]

Where I work getting a PE license was actively discouraged. It adds liability if the company gets sued.

To the OP's question, we have 3 "signatures" (the names are typed in these days), DRAWN, CHECKED & APPROVED. APPROVED must be a department manager, the rest can be anybody. Real checking is rare these days.

----------------------------------------

The Help for this program was created in Windows Help format, which depends on a feature that isn't included in this version of Windows.

 

[drawoh]

...the rest can be anybody. Real checking is rare these days.

Been there, done that. This one makes me nervous. You or your manager tell a customer's engineer that your drawings are CHECKED. Your customer's engineer learns how you check drawings, and regards you as a pack of rat's[‑]ass liars.

You need a clear QA process that everybody follows that defines what those signatures mean. If this were my process, there would be written-out standards for drawings to meet, there would be a clear definition of the drawing checking process, and there would be formal qualifications for the drawing checker. Initials in the CHECKED[ ]box would indicate that a qualified checker had determined that the drawing met company standards. The CHECKED[ ]initials would be optional, and the designer/drafter would be responsible for the quality of the drawing.

If you are in a rush, and failure is manageable, you have the option of not checking.

--
JHG

 

[SwinnyGG]

If this were my process, there would be written-out standards for drawings to meet, there would be a clear definition of the drawing checking process, and there would be formal qualifications for the drawing checker. Initials in the CHECKED box would indicate that a qualified checker had determined that the drawing met company standards. The CHECKED initials would be optional, and the designer/drafter would be responsible for the quality of the drawing.

I would agree that this is ideal.. but in my experience, when budgets are tight (as they almost always are in the current era) this is one of the first processes that gets thrown out for 'cost without value' reasons.

I've worked many places, and so far every manager I've had who had a technical background always understood that rework is more expensive than good quality control, and having to fight to keep the drawing QC process robust was never a problem. Other places, managers with little or no technical foundation just never seemed to get it. The last place I worked before my career change, I spent literally hundreds of hours in meetings trying to explain to people that catching mistakes on paper is way, way cheaper than catching them in the shop (or worse, in the field, where the equipment NEEDS to work on the first try). The frustration born in those discussions is one of the multiple reasons I'm no longer doing that type of work. Listening to a manager tell me 'if your designers were any good, their drawings would never need to be checked at all' was one of the proverbial last straws.

 

[CWB1]

You need a clear QA process that everybody follows that defines what those signatures mean. If this were my process, there would be written-out standards for drawings to meet, there would be a clear definition of the drawing checking process, and there would be formal qualifications for the drawing checker. Initials in the CHECKED box would indicate that a qualified checker had determined that the drawing met company standards. The CHECKED initials would be optional, and the designer/drafter would be responsible for the quality of the drawing.

With an asterisk next to "formal qualifications for the drawing checker," this has been my experience to a tee. Proper print checking IME (not engineering/design checks) has always been done by a former draftsman with many years of experience within that company, who may/may not have much formal education beyond a certificate or two (hence the asterisk). That said, I would never deride someone in that role bc my last employer's drawing standard was something over 1k pages and didn't include the basics found within Y14.5, and their job was to know that standard well. The company standard's sole purpose was to standardize prints not only in terms of quality but also data organization, which not only made it simpler to find relevant data on complex prints but also helped ensure high quality. The checkers "kept score" on the drafties, and rewards/punishment were given as appropriate for good and lousy work as appropriate.

As to licensure, IME most not in the CE/SE or other small consulting realms take a dim view of it. Usually among research and product dev teams, the folks maintaining a license are doing so purely for their resume as there is no real benefit otherwise. Employers do encourage and give small rewards for obtaining a license, however there's a healthy chance of being pushed into a legal, product def, or other public-facing role away from real engineering which is a negative for many. Probably the biggest reason for the dim view however is their association with small consultants, who often fit the stereotype of "jack of all trades, master of none" and cause issues for the rest of us.

 

[mfgenggear]

any one have a copy of ASME Y14.100 , I don't it would be interesting to read what it defines for requirements (USA)

https://www.asme.org/codes-standards/find-codes-standards/y14-100-engineering-drawing-practices